My pov is that CRT (critical race theory) and related policies, like DEI, put an undue emphasis on race instead of on poverty, and the resulting effect is that policies which are aimed at helping minorities seem like “favoritism” (and called as such by political opponents), which makes a growing population of poor whites (due to the adverse effects of wealth inequality) polarized against minorities.
Separately, the polarization is used by others who want to weaken a democratic nation. For democracies, a growing immigrant population of more poor people will cause further polarization because the growing poor white population believes that “they’re taking our jobs”. This happened during Brexit, this happened with Trump, and this is happening now in Germany and other western democracies.
I know that there are racist groups who have an agenda of their own, and what I am saying is that instead of focusing on what are painted as culture war issues, leftists are better off focusing on alleviating systemic poverty. Like, bringing the Nordic model to the U.S. should be their agenda.
So, maybe I am wrong about CRT and DEI and how it’s well-meaning intentions are being abused by people who have other goals, but I want to hear from others about why they think CRT and DEI help. I want to listen, so I am not going to respond at all.
— Added definitions —
CRT: an academic field used to understand how systems and processes favor white people despite anti-discrimination policies. Analysis coming out of CRT is often used to make public policy.
DEI: a framework for increasing diversity, equity and inclusion; DEI isn’t focused on race or gender only, but also includes disability and other factors (pregnancy for example) which affect a person.
— —
Okay , so end note: I appreciate the people who commented. I questioned the relevancy of CRT/DEI previously out of an alarmed perspective of how aspects that highlight group differences can be used by others to create divisions and increase polarization. But I get the point everyone is making about the historical significance of these tools.
This is a great question to ask in a .ml community as I think they will be able to contextualize this a bit better for you, and I would be interested in what they say too. Cause I agree, I think identity politics (which I think is what you’re getting at here) is used especially by the ruling class as a way to look nominally progressive (or anti-progressive) and make people feel like they have a real choice in politics, but is ultimately damaging both to its own goals and to the overall political consciousness, in the ways you noted, by divorcing them from the material realities that create and perpetuate these divisions for all people in society. I think that in either direction, they are pushed as a means to distract from the root causes of those issues (which is all the better for a ruling class that benefits from this social order), which if addressed would be a much more equitable way of dealing with them and far more difficult for criticism to take hold.
I think people would see that we have far more in common than not if we weren’t constantly pitted against each other to compete for resources that are only made scarce for the sake of profit and austerity.
CRT though, in actuality, is precisely what you are talking about. It is a school of thought that analyzes racial inequalities in the context of history and critiqueing the ways that they are perpetuated in our society. It became a buzzword because conservative media made it into one totally divorced from its original context.
So like that environmental justice database musk just shut down, that analyzes things like pollution, asthma and other health impacts, death rates, etc? So environmental cleanup efforts can focus on those who are most affected? Apparent it’s crt or DEI or woke or something since those most affected tend to be disproportionately non-white. It can’t be the “merit” of being most impacted by pollution
The facts are that black Americans are worse off than other groups in almost every way we can measure. There are two competing theories to explain this.
1-the systems of our society are biased against black people. That’s Systemic-Racism. 2-black people are inferior to everyone else. That’s racism, original recipe.
How are these systems biased against black people? That’s what the field of CRT seeks to answer.
Prof Wolff just released a great video about this yesterday, although it’s more about debunking the myth of a meritocracy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILljYRz_G-I
Poverty and opportunity are how we choose elevate people to create equity.
The diversity is how we can objectively measure outcomes - whether people in power are actually applying the above principles.
Good on OP for seeking challenges to their existing view points and being open to changing them upon compelling enough thoughts. In a genuine way no less.
Yeah I was prepared for another change my mind post where the OP obviously is never gonna change their mind. Glad I was wrong.
Imagine a hundred runners entering an insanely long footrace. Before the race starts, the official says that due to his complexion, one runner will start running at the second gunshot, and the other runners will begin at the first gunshot. The darker skinned runner contests, but those are the rules and if he wants to race, he must follow them.
BLAM
The palest runners are off and running while the other one anticipates the second gunshot. He patiently waits, but it doesn’t come. After ten minutes, the runner complains to the official, but he repeats that these are the rules, and if you just wait patiently, it’ll be your turn. After an hour the crowd is outraged by the injustice and begin to protest.
BLAM
The official fires the second shot in order to deescalate the situation and prevent the stadium from being torn apart. The runner is off and he is determined to gain as much ground as possible as the other runners.
At the end of the day, the runners meet up at a checkpoint to rest before the next section of the race. When they announce the official times, the darker skinned man is 50 minutes behind the other runners. He mentions to the officials that he had to wait an hour to start, and that he would have had a better time than many of them if they had started at the same time.
Fine, they say, not wanting another scene like they had at the starting line, “from now on, all runners start at the same time.” That’s great! So, can I deduct an hour from my time?
WHAT!? WE ALREADY CHANGED THE RULES TO MAKE IT EQUAL. EVERYBODY STARTS AT THE SAME TIME! AND NOW YOU WANT MORE? THE OTHER RUNNERS DIDN’T NEED ANY TIME DEDUCTIONS!
I now see I went too heavy on the caps, but I’m not typing it again.
Anyway, DEI is the one hour time deduction. It’s making up for holding them back for so long while everyone else was sprinting ahead. But, those other runners, they were so busy running that they don’t know how long it took for that second gunshot to go off. All they see is a runner with a mediocre time getting a 1 hour deduction which moves him to the top 3. The guy getting bumped to fourth is REALLY going to feel cheated, and resent the system that gave that guy an hour just because of his skin color.
Tell me if I’m wrong but I would like to clarify something based on what Rhynoplaz said above that I feel they meant,
to clarify: I believe the CRT and DEI ideally have nothing to do with historical events.
(P.S. I don’t know how the DEI and CRT work currently, this is my own opinion on a hypothetical best solution. (Open to ideas if I’m wrong))
The DEI and CRT have nothing to do with past events. It is not about putting everything in reverse, giving the darker skinned man a time cut for every future race because of all the 100s of past races he had to wait.
it is simply about the situation now, the current race, the current job application.
the DEI and CRT should ideally only be about removing the bias of the judge for that specific event, so that the final scores represent each person’s actual time, there is not retribution, there is no repayment for past wrongs, it is only about making the current event, the current job market, fair for everyone.
So that when the scores for that specific day are finalized everyones time is what they actually ran.
The CRT finds what makes the specific event unfair, and the DEI fixes it so everyones time is what they actually ran.
It is only removing the current bias in the Official.
Poverty is a completely different (though somewhat related) issue.
Dealing with poverty isnt about removing the bias, it is about rebuilding the very constructs of our society into a place that does not rely on some working 24h to put food on there plate while others sit around ruling those below.
Capitalism does not exist without poverty, if everyone’s rich, nobody is.
The only solution to this while keeping capitalism is to ensure every person has access to their human rights free of charge, but then our rulers would complain that these people living free of charge are lazy and sapping up your precious tax payer dollars that you worked your but off for.
no government organization can fix poverty, the entire current system for every current country is flawed, in order to get rid of poverty we must rebuild these systems from the ground up.
We’ve done it before and made the lives of millions better. and we can do it again.
There’s a video I watched that explains the concept very similarly here: https://youtu.be/4K5fbQ1-zps
What’s interesting is that in the video, none of the questions even mention race, but you can see how the racial minorities are affected more than the rest.
Thank you
This is such a big non-answer lol
It’s alright that you weren’t looking back, just take his word when he says he’s not as far ahead as he should be.
proven multiple times and confirmed by multiple studies: communities that welcome immigrants have higher education rates, better incomes, higher productivity, and lower crime than communities based on exclusion/exclusivity/isolation/separation
conservatives use “CRT” and “DEI” to sow polarization because they know even they’d get blowback if they admitted they were just anti-empathy/pro-hatred/anti-equality
Is it “Welcoming to Immigrants” -> higher education, income, productivity or the other way round?
Positive feedback loop.
Okay, so about immigration I’ll just make this point, from another thread:
So, let’s say a democratic country favors pro-choice policies, but then has an influx of immigrants who are anti-abortion, and now that population is greater. That’s a change of values because the population shifted to a majority opinion which favors a different view point. If a country has an idealized view of how it wants to be, then I think it’s fair to expect immigrants to integrate and assimilate. I don’t think that has anything to do with xenophobia or not excluding different cultures, as long as the core values of a country are maintained. For example, if a country wants to maintain a democratic socialist society, and a greater population of capitalists immigrate to it, then I think that socialist society would want to restrict immigration as well.
The above point is to demonstrate how democracies are fragile, and that not all immigration policies are necessarily xenophobic or racist.
I’m guessing you’re willing to try and learn, so I’m gonna try to put my thoughts together. This will be a long one, and I hope you’re patient enough to go over it all and process it. I tend to ramble.
Using a “what if” to try and counter actual goings on is not an ideal way to make a point. You could also ask within that “what if” if those immigrants start to change their views based on the pro-choice laws and society.
Thing is, most people want fewer abortions, across the board. Many people also want access to abortions because there are circumstances where the only actual medical procedure to avoid the loss of both parent and child is an abortion.
In addition, most pro choice people are pro:
- contraception
- neonatal care
- month’s-long paid parental leave for both parents
- subsidized daycare
- subsidized nutrition programs, including WIC, SNAP, and school lunches
- housing assistance
- minimum wage increases
- community after school programs
And many more. All of these empower and better the life of the recipient - as well as society at large - but all are regularly voted down or demonized by “pro life” groups, despite them all actually pro being alive. They are “pro human”.
Additionally, using “what if” scenarios to try to debate isn’t good debate rhetoric. It starts to move the focus onto something else to then start “attacking”, which is known as a strawman. It’s like when people complain about boys in girls’ sports for all trans laws. It happens so little that it’s effectively not happening, nor worth focusing on. It’s a strawman, and it changes the focus of the dialogue.
Most anti-immigrant policy in the USA are and have been xenophobic in nature. At least in the 40+ years I’ve been alive, and the 20+ years I’ve been politically involved.
CRT is an academic discipline. It’s not “pro black people” or “let’s put black people on a pedestal” or “let’s only vote for back people to positions of power”. It’s focusing more on the [very truncated] reality that a) 400+ years of slavery happened, and b) the black community is at a massive social disadvantage because of it. This video from Trevor Noah breaks down reparations and privilege quite adroitly. It doesn’t only focus on the black community, but it’s a big part, because of our nation’s history.
CRT can cover anything from slave patrols, to the 13th amendment’s sneaky little loophole that then permitted really dumb laws across the nation, to redlining, to origins and proliferation of music, to medical misinformation, to the Tuskegee experiments, and on and on. Because again, CRT is first and foremost an academic discipline. It’s not being taught in high school or elementary school because it’s a critically theoretical [scientific] practice. It is a way of thinking about thinking, and societal impacts, with focus on race and ethnicity, and how those things impact and have impacted society.
DEI is simply an initialism of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. These three principles should be embraced by everyone. If you wanted homogeneity, you’d have a pretty terrible world. Especially genetic homogeneity. Just ask the Habsburg family tree.
When discussing this, the one thing I’ve noticed is that there seems to be this Zero-Sum Game theory of thinking. In that if on side wins, another side must lose. It’s a common mentality in the US, especially when sports and wars, etc. are involved. We are so very individually centrist, we fail to look at the whole and see that even when someone else wins, WE ALL win.
A diverse group of people is a more challenging group of people, since it’s no longer an echo chamber. There may be thoughts, ideas, words, actions, etc. that previously might have been acceptable, that now parts of the group don’t consider acceptable. A reasonable response is to then follow up and try to understand the causes of those issues. To try and find a way to work together amicably. This then shows that people are Equitable in their input. That they have a similar value, and that their racial / ethnic / social issues can be heard and understood, to ideally improve the world around them, including in the workplace.
Often, people misunderstand that a “merit-based” society exists. It doesn’t. Not only does money buy your way in to most opportunities, your familial and ethnic background also have a massive impact on your opportunities, and consequences. All else being equal, a black man and a white man are going to have different experiences at the same moment in the same space. Including getting any job, even the highest of the land. Hell, look at SCOTUS Justice Jackson. Despite all of the “anti DEI” rhetoric, she’s literally the most qualified person to have ever been confirmed to the position. Bar none, hands down, no lies. And say what you will about her policies, but Kamala was ALSO the most qualified person to ever run for US President. Despite these issues, people used “DEI” as a veil to really say “she’s a black woman, and I don’t want a black woman running my country” for both.
Inclusion is just the opposite of rejection. And at the end of the day, the biggest fear on virtually every human mind is the fear of being rejected. We all fight with ourselves daily to feel like we belong, that people like us, that we are valuable, that we are worthy. But there’s a large sector of our society that takes that internal fear and pushes it out into the world, to find a way to feel better about their own inner struggles. They reject a group, and find acceptance in another. Because we still haven’t beaten the stupid lizard brain in the base of our skull that says “us good, them bad”.
Finally, I recommend everyone who is trying to understand why conservatives think the way to do (including oneself, if you’re trying to be an introspective conservative), is to watch this video from Innuendo Studios.
Hell, look at SCOTUS Justice Jackson. Despite all of the “anti DEI” rhetoric, she’s literally the most qualified person to have ever been confirmed to the position. Bar none, hands down, no lies.
There’s an amazing quote from Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She was vocal about there needing to be more women on the US supreme court. She was asking how many women she’d like there to be, and she answered “9 women” (meaning all of them). When the interviewer reacted with shock, she simply asked him why that would be so bad, since they were obviously fine with having 9 men on the court.
It’s a great illustration of how badly we all need to switch thinking. Of course, Equity feels really unfair to those previously enjoying privileges.
That might make sense, except that numbers of migrants is miniscule compared to the existing population in almost every case.
For example, Australia has ~200k permanent migrants per year. With a population of 26m. In order for the migrants to become a majority, it would take 130 years to import 26m people. (This is obviously grossly simplified).
There is basically no real risk that we will drown in migrants.
You’re writing as if CRT were a set of policies instead of an academic discipline—that’s why everyone is asking you to clarify what you think it is before they reply. It’s like trying to respond to someone criticizing “quantum theory” who only talks about the economic effects of nuclear power plants.
There’s Fox News CRT which scare mongered our grandparents into thinking that liberals were trying to brainwash children into hating grandma and grandpa. Then there’s actual CRT, which teaches kids that Grandma and Grandpa didn’t want black people drinking out of the same water fountain.
Two very very different concepts. One is just telling history as it happened. The other one is fear that kids might learn history as it actually happened.
First off, CRT is a red herring. It’s an extremely niche framework for historical analysis and egalitarianism which is irrelevant outside academic contexts and only gained ground due to a racist asshole.
When it comes to DEI I think that your heart is in the right place - this is all about economic justice and if there were better ways to account for that it’d be an excellent thing to correct for (though, imo, the better correction would be to ensure all children had a genuinely equal chance at success). Unfortunately, because America has a long history of racism, race and poverty are strongly correlated.
The other half of DEI is that people tend to hire like. It’s a deep social flaw but we need to acknowledge it - white men will tend to hire white men, a company composed entirely of black women will tend to hire black women… we have studies. Most entrenched wealth is held by white men and so white men have an inherent advantage in employment.
The last thing I’d highlight is that a rising tide raises all ships - your assumption that immigration causes an expansion of poverty usually hasn’t been born out. In capitalism more people means more labor means more innovation means more wealth - there are some limits around resources but we’re not near any hard limits in that regard.
I’m not sure what Cathode Ray Tubes have to do with any of this.
I suppose they’re both highly charged and make specific points with the goal of providing illuminated information
Damn, nice.
I’m not USAian enough to understand all this, but let me just say, the problem is the rich. Them stealing all the money leaves little for the rest, and due to the lack of education, the rest fights each other over what’s left instead of uniting against rich fucks. Painting CRT, DEI, feminism, trans-rights, anti-immigration, etc. as the issue are just ways to divide the have-nots.
Divide and conquer.
Actually, you understand it TOO WELL to be USAian.
Politically, focusing on class might be more expedient at getting results. Doesn’t mean that correcting past wrongs isn’t the morally correct thing to do.
If you want us to talk you out of your position we need you to describe what exactly you think CRT and DEI actually are in your own words.
If you can invest your time in explaining those things as you understand them then I am willing to discuss it with you.
If you copy paste from the net I will call you out and take that as a hostile response.
It’s in the OP.
No, that is not what you think those things are. That’s your position on them. In order to tell if you actually understand what they are, I need you to explain them. If you can’t explain something then you don’t actually understand it.
That’s the only way I can get a real baseline for where you are coming from and where you potentially went wrong.
Okay, I’ll add those.
Ok, now that you’ve added those very basic descriptions. Be honest, could you have done that without looking it up?
Now that you presumably know that both of these things are primarily educational, and not actual favoritism. What is it about them that you think makes poor white people so angry? I’m also curious why you think it’s just poor people that take issue with this? The biggest public detractors are all quite wealthy.
Edit: I’m sorry but this process is going to involve a lot of questions. That’s just how this works if we’re both trying to be constructive.
I am not angry about anything, and I didn’t look them up now, tbh. The issue I find is that well-meaning and useful policies are painted as something they’re not, or used by others to create polarization. So, my pov is that leftists and progressives are better off focusing on poverty alleviation. If minorities face generational wealth issues (they do) then poverty alleviation policies that don’t single them out in particular will be harder to attack by political opponents.
The problem is that systemic racism is a large part of why minority groups are in poverty in the first place.
You can’t address poverty in minority groups without addressing the racism.
You’re also falling for the fallacy that this is an either or situation. You can fight systemic racism and other underlying causes of poverty at the same.
There’s nothing wrong with educating people on specific issues related to specific demographics. That’s why BLM existing isn’t saying that other races don’t matter.
Would you say that the New Deal policies are the types of policies that you are talking about. The ones enacted by the US government during the recovery from the depression?
I didn’t say you were angry, I was asking why you think it makes poor white people angry.
I think policies in the Nordic model are more along those lines, tbh.
Reading this as a third party… Someone came to learn and you’re being unnecessarily hostile.
This isn’t “why is it my responsibility to tell you, the offender, how to be decent” - it’s strangers opting in to inform strangers. Just prefix with your assumptions about definitions, and answer.
You familiar w flies, honey, vinegar, etc?
Feel free to take time out of your day to enact your preferred approach.
Fun fact: flies actually prefer vinegar.
Should be a salaried position^ 🫡
No it is not. You have complaints against DEI and CRT, but you don’t have a definition. Write your own definition as if you were trying to write a dictionary entry.
I added it.
Wow, you actually did.
There are two major problems with focusing only on wealth or income inequality. First, you need to have a degree of racial consciousness in addition to class consciousness if you want any hope of addressing wealth and income inequality. If you don’t, it’s far, far too easy for those opposed to economic inequality to use racial divisions to tank efforts at economic reform. That’s ultimately what killed the New Deal and the Great Society. We had enough class consciousness to get major economic reforms passed. But then the opponents of economic reform used racial divisions to grind these reforms to a halt. See “welfare queen.” If you can convince the poorest white man he is being held down by a black man, it is trivial for the rich to rob him blind.
Second, often times wealth and race are inseparable. Wealth and income are correlated with race. Imagine tomorrow you waived a magic wand and completely reset the national wealth. You literally take every single asset in the country and divide ownership equally among all citizens. Come back 20 years later, and you would still observe massive disparities in wealth and income due to systematic racism.
The real point of DEI is to make it so meritocracy is more than just a slogan. You design hiring and promotion procedures so as to remove bias of as many forms as possible. The problem is that even if people aren’t overtly or intentionally racist, they will inevitably hire and promote people with subconscious biases. A company full of white men will inevitably just end up hiring and promoting people most like themselves, unless active measures are made to remove bias from the hiring process.
Economic justice is impossible without racial justice.
Democracy is not just about voting. Democracy is not just about freedom to debate political topics. Democracy is also about being actualized in a way which allows you to advocate for yourself and your interests. This works both from a idealistic and functional perspective - egalitarian democracy is the “right” thing to do, but it also serves to help identify and remedy issues in specific communities before they become bigger problems.
The core thesis for progressive liberalism is that for a democracy to function properly, we should identify injustice and work to reduce it, so that marginalized communities have better access to these democratic primitives than they would otherwise. The idea is that this creates a proactive framework for dealing with problems, rather than a reactive one. Otherwise the Democratic process seems cursed to leap from big crisis to big crisis without any real strategy for working at smaller scales.
